Must Sophists think?

How arguable is a flower? On what basis? Why?

Source

If you follow the logic of similar so-called academic
debates turgidly lumbering around the Internet and in mainstream media on practically
every issue, you'll notice that there’s a breathtaking lack of working logic, originality
and depth. Professional skeptics, for example, usually start from a negative
position. That'd be fine, except the entire argument is invariably always
negative and remains negative. It starts off negative and simply then proceeds
to prove its own point to its own satisfaction.

This is thinking? Most professional skeptics for some reason
or other operate like an academic version of the Black Bloc, those wonderful
people who always show up at progressive rallies and do as much damage as
possible to the image of the people holding the rallies. Like the Black
Bloc, they never contradict any Conservative concepts at all.

Professional skeptics seem to be entirely content with
simply disapproving of progressive ideas. On that basis, you would have to
assume that all previous thought was entirely correct, and that all new ideas
by definition must be wrong. Perhaps not the most constructive possible approach
to human thought.

Skeptics extremely rarely, if ever, offer any new
information or insights. This level of consistency, applied to any concept,
could best be described as unhealthy in any academic stream, although in this
case we’re really talking about an academic sewer which hasn't been cleaned out
for about the last 5000 years.

Sophistry means literally "false argument".
Sophistry is used purely to prove a self-serving point. If you've ever read
anything on the subject of Socrates, you will be aware that Socrates spent a
lot of time taking apart sophist arguments. Apparently all those thousands of
years ago the Sophists could put together much better arguments than they do
now.

The easiest way to deal with sophistry is to simply follow
the logic. Sophistry invariably contains any number of self contradictions,
non-sequiteurs and never survives any form of extended logic. You'd think this
would be a pretty basic bit of academic knowledge, but apparently not.

Interestingly, modern Sophists tend to rely on cliché and
the supposedly "common" concepts of extremely conventional thought.
They're not exactly innovators, and if you introduce a new element into any
conversation, you'll immediately note a range of blank expressions. Those
expressions mean that they have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about,
and it takes a while for them to develop a response.

Contrast this behaviour with the nothing less than
dictatorial approach to their own statements, which have all certainty of people
reading from the text. Professional skeptics never challenge traditional
beliefs in any shape or form. Quite the opposite, they have a sickening tendency
to absolute conformism. You'd think that people so utterly devoid of their own
personal opinions would seek medical help, but instead they seek publicity.
Perhaps that's some form of therapy.

Anything and any view or opinion the notably unelected,
unasked-for, so-called traditional mindsets of the past said was true is the
default view of professional skeptics. This is sophistry on a grand scale, and
it's extremely common. Like the contents of sewers, any level of debate is
progressively degraded and sinks to the lowest level.

An argument about a major concept like life on other worlds,
turns into an infantile series of assertions based on a totally discredited conventional
view which hardly anyone actually holds. The professional skeptic will state,
reasonably enough, that proof is required. The problem is that the professional
skeptic will then be also proceed to deny that any information, from whatever
source, and however much verified, provided constitutes proof. A simple
inconsistency, which, however, has been continuous for decades.

Sophists tend to pedants. The sort of breadcrumb trail leads
from one cliché to the next, and one tired, groaning conceptual platitude to
the next. You can literally predict every single thing a sophist is going to
say, the minute you hear the logic squeaking along.

Professional skepticism, sad to say, which would otherwise
be a particularly useful function in any society for drivel and disinformation
eradication, has degenerated into yet another Management Science gravy train,
in which the basis of sophistry is purely to ensure agreement with the basic
mindset, usually derived from some self-important geriatric imbecile clique with
vested interests and the combined intellects of a squashed cockroach.

It might be worth pointing out that this stage that
information and logic do not have to conform to any preset series of ideas. A
new situation, by definition, does not necessarily include any previously
established elements, and precedent only goes so far even for the most
optimistic traditionalists.

Skepticism based on precedent can only be sophistry.
Professional skepticism, therefore, is simply professional sophistry.
Skepticism which doesn't involve case specific logic is merely pitiful. It is
simply not good enough to wind up a series of hack phrases and concepts and
call it an argument.

There was a time some years ago when basic academic hazing
involved a collection of other was not particularly bright people literally
learning by rote a series of arguments and statements designed to prove their
intelligence. A statement would be made with a preset response and this,
somehow, manifested great intelligence. Typical of Sophists, even this ultimate
irony was completely lost on them.

Comments

No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

sending

Hello, hello,

8 years agofrom London, UK

I often thought that about David Cameron when Labour was in power. He kept critizing whatever Mr Brown said but never made an alternative suggestion. I am not as educated as you and couldn't put it words. Therefore I enjoyed your hub very much and I agree with every point you have made. Thank you for a splendid hub.

AUTHOR

Paul Wallis

8 years agofrom Sydney, Australia

...And no one even tried to stop me.

666divine

8 years agofrom Toronto, Ontario

and you said it well.

AUTHOR

Paul Wallis

8 years agofrom Sydney, Australia

Thank you. As you might have gathered, this article has been fermenting for a while,but I really wanted to get this one right. I've been wanting to say all this for such a long time...

Kevin Schofield

8 years ago

Hi Paul. I've got nothing against sceptics, a la Hume. But agree with you and Socrates that sophists are basically whores, and that sceptism used to stultify and stifle original thought is cynical and damaging. Many thanks for a stimulating and thought-provoking hub! Kind regards, Kev.

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)

Google AdSense Host API

This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

Facebook Login

You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

Maven

This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.

Conversion Tracking Pixels

We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics

Author Google Analytics

This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)

Comscore

ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)

Amazon Tracking Pixel

Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)